Verified Services

Is it legal to ‘force you’ to accept email marketing?

There’s no way that I can login at Starbucks without agreeing to accept emails from BT. I’m not sure that’s legal. Does anyone know? Even if it is legal, it’s bloody shocking. And big companies like Starbucks and BT ought to know better.

Boy, that’s a doozy. While CAN-SPAM requires companies to provide clear mechanisms to opt-out from all future messages, checking that box and logging in seems like it falls under the “affirmative consent” section of the law: it’s clearly stated that by logging in, you’re opting back in. I don’t think US Law is set up to handle this, and I’m sure Starbucks’s lawyers knew that. You probably could file a complaint to the FTC, as this doesn’t seem to follow the spirit of the SPAM rules in place.

According to the Privacy and Electronic Communications ( EC Directive) Regulations 2003, organisations cannot send unsolicited marketing communications by email to individual subscribers unless the recipient has given his prior consent. Which means the opportunity to actively opt in to receive communications (generally considered best practice) or opt out od receiving communications.

In this case you don’t have an opportunity to opt-out – it is part of the condition of using the service, which I’m pretty sure is illegal.

This is not illegal unfortunately. It’s quite a strange thing for Starbucks to do and what often happens is that within the the Terms and Conditions (which normally everyone accepts without reading) there will be a privacy policy which will set out whether Starbucks can send your personal information to 3rd parties.

In this way its making it clearer to you what they are intending to do rather than hiding it away in the Terms and Conditions which no one reads.

I’m afraid that “free wifi” has never really existed as the price has always been providing information for the provider’s database and possible the database of third parties.

It’s illegal to make you ‘opt out’ rather than ‘opt in’ for email marketing. Maybe the law gets determinist on Free Will after that. Maybe Starbucks found some loophole. I guess the latter’s more likely.

Bundling together T&Cs with spam is sneaky and snide. At very very least, they should be separate tick boxes – one mandatory, the other ignore-able.

I’ve seen a couple of these sneaky things lately,
@guy as far as I know it is technically illegal however it’s one of those things that’s rarely ‘enforced’.
From starbucks and BT point of view – it’s one of those silly thoughtless things that it going to cause ill feeling which far outweighs any benefit of having the data, they should know better.